{"id":12916,"date":"2024-02-23T18:45:31","date_gmt":"2024-02-23T18:45:31","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.writemyessays.app\/blog\/questions\/m3-case-analysis-non-compete-agreements-and-intellectual-property-the-value-partners-sa-italy-and-bain-company-usa-conflict-in-brazil\/"},"modified":"2024-02-23T18:45:31","modified_gmt":"2024-02-23T18:45:31","slug":"m3-case-analysis-non-compete-agreements-and-intellectual-property-the-value-partners-sa-italy-and-bain-company-usa-conflict-in-brazil","status":"publish","type":"questions","link":"https:\/\/www.writemyessays.app\/blog\/questions\/m3-case-analysis-non-compete-agreements-and-intellectual-property-the-value-partners-sa-italy-and-bain-company-usa-conflict-in-brazil\/","title":{"rendered":"M3 Case Analysis NON-COMPETE AGREEMENTS AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY: THE VALUE PARTNERS SA (ITALY) AND BAIN & COMPANY (USA) CONFLICT IN BRAZIL"},"content":{"rendered":"

CASE
\nSTUDY 6.1: NON-COMPETE AGREEMENTS AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY: THE VALUE PARTNERS
\nSA (ITALY) AND BAIN & COMPANY (USA) CONFLICT IN BRAZIL<\/u><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Value
\nPartners, headquartered in Milan, Italy, and recognized as one of the major
\nEuropean management consulting firms with approximately 150 professionals
\nworking in seven offices in three continents and with clients in over 50
\ncountries, was founded in 1993 by former partners of the Italian offices of
\nMcKinsey & Company. They opened their first overseas offices in S\u00e3o Paulo,
\nBrazil, and Buenos Aires, Argentina, in 1994. By the end of 1997, its S\u00e3o Paulo
\noffice had 20 employees producing annual revenues of about $5 million,
\nassisting both Italian clients and local companies.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Rival
\nBain & Company, a major management consultancy with over 10,500 employees
\nand 60 offices in 37 countries, was founded in 1973 by seven former partners
\nfrom the Boston Consulting Group, and is headquartered in Boston. Bain
\nestablished its S\u00e3o Paulo office in October 1997, and by early November, had
\nhired away almost all of Value Partners\u2019 staff.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Value
\nPartners filed criminal charges in Brazil and New York against Bain, alleging
\nbreach of trust and loyalty of its former employees (pirated away by Bain) and
\ntheft of confidential and proprietary information. The New York court ruled
\nthat the case would be more conveniently and efficiently dealt with in Brazil
\nunder the doctrine that New York was not the most convenient place to hear the
\ncase. Unfortunately for Value Partners, Brazilian law offered none of the US\u2019s
\nsignificant compensatory and punitive damages for employee disloyalty and theft
\nof intellectual property. However, the New York federal court also made it
\nclear that Value Partners was permitted to re-file the lawsuit against Bain in
\na more convenient forum.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

So,
\nValue Partners re-filed the case in Boston, the site of Bain headquarters.
\nAfter a five-week trial, the jury found Bain & Company liable for unfair
\ncompetition and tortuous interference and awarded Value Partners $10 million in
\ncompensatory damages (the full award sought). The trial court, after awarding
\nanother $2.5 million of interest, denied all of Bain\u2019s post-trial motions.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

As
\nlabor markets become global and firms develop new forms of relations with
\nworkers in foreign locales (such as IT workers or call centers in overseas
\nlocations), it becomes increasingly difficult to control the movement of
\nworkers from one employer to another and their taking of intellectual property
\n(such as product or process technology or customer lists and preferences) from
\ntheir current employer to their new one. Because the rules (and cultures) are
\nso different from one country to another, it becomes very difficult to enforce
\nany non-compete agreements in employment contracts.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

This
\nsituation shows how difficult it can be to enforce covenants, like non-compete
\nagreements, particularly in situations involving firms from outside countries.
\nThe more reasonable a restrictive covenant is, the more likely it is that
\ncourts worldwide will enforce it. But in some jurisdictions, such as in Latin
\nAmerica and the US state of California, non-compete clauses in employment
\ncontracts are considered illegal. Nevertheless, generally speaking the shorter
\nthe time period of the restraint and the more narrowly defined the people
\ncovered, the more likely it is to be enforced across borders.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Sources:
\nHall, L. (2001). Protecting your vital assets. Global HR, July\u2013August, 46\u201352;
\nupdate (2014): http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Bain_&_Company;
\nhttp:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Value_Partners. Update in 2021 from: Bain &
\nCompany website (2021): www.bain.com; Value Partners Website (2021): www.valuepartners.com<\/a>.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Before
\nyou submit your completed case analysis, think how you would answer the
\nfollowing questions about the quality of your work:<\/i><\/p>\n